This is a civil rights action filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds in forma pauperis and pro se.

The case is before me for preservice screening under the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court has the obligation to
screen any complaint in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental
entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

1. Background

According to the allegations of the Complaint, on September 11, 2011, Plaintiff was

arrested and charged with the second degree murder of Christopher Palmer. Palmer died of a

stab wound in his leg inflicted by the Plaintiff. Among the officials at the scene were Troopers

Lynn Benedict and Jimmy O. Thomas of the Arkansas State Police.

The first officer on the scene was Officer Shona Jordan. When she entered the house,

she found a man, later identified as Christopher Palmer, lying in a pool of blood and another

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

man, later identified as the Plaintiff, beside him holding pressure on the wound. Plaintiff

admitted to stabbing Palmer.

Trooper Benedict took the lead in the investigation having Plaintiff sign a Miranda rights

form and a permission to search form. Troopers Benedict and Thomas interviewed the Plaintiff.

During the interview, Plaintiff maintains Trooper Benedict exhibited bias when he took the word

of eyewitnesses over that of the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff maintains the witness statements prove he acted in self-defense or committed

manslaughter at best. However, due to the bias of Trooper Benedict, Plaintiff states he was

charged with second degree murder.

Plaintiff maintains Trooper Benedict had a conflict of interest and should not have been

involved in the investigation of the case. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that Trooper Benedict was

married to Cathy Palmer who was the second or third cousin of the victim. Plaintiff maintains

Trooper Benedict knowingly concealed this fact.

Plaintiff asserts that Trooper Thomas was aware of the conflict and failed to intervene.

In fact, Trooper Thomas was present during the interview of the Plaintiff but played only a

minimal role in the questioning.

With respect to the prosecuting attorneys, Plaintiff maintains they engaged in misconduct

when they knowingly used false or misleading evidence, biased accounts of the events, and

otherwise used evidence they knew to be tainted or biased in the prosecution of the Plaintiff.

With respect to Clay Janske, his attorney, Plaintiff maintains he failed to properly investigate the

facts and people involved and failed to find the conflict of interest.

immunity from suit under § 1983 for giving false testimony damaging to a subject of that

testimony).

Finally, any remaining claims against Trooper Benedict or Trooper Thomas based on the

Plaintiff's arrest and his criminal prosecution, are not presently cognizable. In Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme Court held that a claim for damages for " allegedly

unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose

unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid" is not cognizable until " the

conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared

invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such a determination, or called into question by a

federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus." Id., at 486-87.

Plaintiff's claims call into question several aspects of the investigation and criminal

prosecution against him. Clearly, these claims cannot proceed at this time.

3. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, I recommend that this case be dismissed as all claims

asserted are frivolous, fail to state claims upon which relief may be granted, are asserted against

individuals immune from suit, or are not presently cognizable in a civil rights action. See 28

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)- (iii) ( in forma pauperis action may be dismissed on such grounds at

any time).

The Plaintiff has fourteen (14) days from receipt of the report and recommendation

in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file

timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The Plaintiff

is reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by

the district court.

DATED this 22nd day of January, 2015.

/s/ Mark E. Ford

HON. MARK E. FORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.